II. CHAP. brethren. If this plan of righteousness be observed, there is no need of baptism; if it be neglected, baptism is of no avail." They particularly objected to the baptism of infants, because they were altogether incapable of understanding or confessing the truth. They denied the real presence of Christ's body in the Lord's supper: they rejected the consecration of Churches: they opposed various reigning superstitions, particularly the doctrine of purgatory and the practices connected with it. They likewise refused to worship the cross, or any images whatever. The bishop of Arras, having examined their supposed errors, and, in his own opinion, confuted them, rew up a confession of faith, contrary to those errors, which he required the heretics to sign. As they did not well understand the Latin tongue, he caused the confession to be explained to them in the vulgar tongue, by an interpreter; then, according to this account, they approved and signed the instrument, and were dismissed in peace by the bishop. It is very difficult to judge a cause by hearing only one side, and that side prejudiced to an extreme. If we are tempted to look on the doctrines of Gundulphus, in a favourable light, whatever we may think of the characters of these his timorous disciples, from this short narrative of his enemies, how much more excellent might they appear, if we had his writings and sermons? As he did not deny the use of the Lord's supper, but only the doctrine of the real presence, it is probable that he held baptism also in a similar manner. If, however, he absolutely rejected the baptism of infants, the people, who call themselves baptists at this day, may seem with justice to claim Gundulphus as belonging to their sect. The nature of mankind, ever prone to run from one extreme to another, will easily account for this circumstance of the rejection of infant-baptism. The practice had long been sullied with supersti XI. tious fooleries: the transition to its total rejection CENT. was natural. Yet we shall afterward see reason to doubt, whether this people did deny the absolute unlawfulness of infant-baptism, when we come to consider the religious views of the Waldenses; for the probability is strong, that generally those called heretics in France, Flanders, and Italy, in these middle ages, were similar to each other in doctrines and customs. And certainly we see in them a noble testimony to the existence of evangelical truth, a body of men in Italy before the year 1026, in doctrine and practice directly opposite to the Church of Rome, spreading purity of Christian worship through the world with all their might, and distinguishing themselves from the general mass of Christians in the west. I cannot believe that they They opheld marriage as unlawful, though they were charged posed the with this sentiment by their enemies: and, notwith- corruptions. standing some errors and blemishes, it is not to be doubted, but that on the whole they were of the true Church of Christ. Faithfully to withstand idolatry and the reigning corruptions, required a light and strength far above nature, and I have only to regret, that, after a careful search, this is all the account I can find of them. ' Not long after the supposed heretics of Orleans, arose the famous Berengarius of Tours, who wrote against the doctrine of the real presence. His writings called forth the most learned Romanists to defend the tenets of Paschasius Radbertus; and Berengarius was compelled to renounce, and to burn his writings. But he recanted again and again, and returned, says a contemporary popish author*, *Bertold, Presbyter of Constantia. See Bishop Newton's 3d Vol. of the Prophecies, p. 164. I have examined Du Pin, Natalis Alexander, A. Butler, and Mosheim on this subject; and find the whole mass of information so very uninteresting, though prolix beyond measure, that the few sentences in the text seem to me all that is needful to be observed on the Berengarian controversy. VOL. III. Romish CHAP. like the dog to his vomit. Whether he died in the same sentiments, is strongly contested between the papists and the protestants. The former quote William of Malmesbury, who says, he died trembling. "This day," said he, "will my Lord Jesus Christ appear to me, either to glorify his mercy in my repentance, or, as I fear, to punish me for the mischief I have done by my example." The sentiment,. whether founded on fact or not, is strongly expressive of the genius of the then reigning religion, which excluded the spirit of adoption and filial confidence in God through Christ, and supported the spirit of bondage and anxiety. And the effect was, in this case, proportional to the cause. Men had lost the Christian article of justification through faith alone; and, believing salvation to be suspended on the merit of human works, they found it impossible for Berengarius, even on the most sincere repentance for his supposed heresy, to countervail the mischiefs which he had done by misleading others. Whether then we suppose the confession of Berengarius to be a forgery, or a real fact, it was delivered in the spirit of those, who weighed human merits and demerits in opposite scales, and found no other method of determining the question of a man's salvation or destruction, than that, which should result from the comparison of his good actions with his crimes. How impossible is it, by such a procedure to give solid peace of conscience to a sinner! Joy, love, and cheerful activity in the Christian life, can have no existence on such a plan: but such was the general spirit of the religion of the times we are reviewing. It is not easy to decide whether the papists or the protestants were in the right, in the determination of the question. In what sentiments did Berengarius die? The former have the advantage of positive testimony in their favour. The question is, however, perfectly inmaterial. The doctrine of the real presence depends not on the character of XI. Berengarius for its decision. I know no marks of CENT. his Christian piety; and his repeated dissimulations render him no honour to either party. It is, however, of some moment to observe, that he was the instrument of calling forth a degree of salutary opposition to the errors of the times. He called the Church of Rome a church of malignants, the council of vanity, and the seat of Satan. And he corrupted, say some old historians, almost all the French, Italians, and English, with his depravities. The expressions are much too strong; but, no doubt, a salutary check was given to the growing superstitions: the opposition to the popedom, though it did not lay hold of the central truths of the Gospel, might yet pave the way for still more effective exertions; and served at least to inform mankind, that the court of Rome was not infallible. CHAP. III. THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL IN THIS CHAP. Hungary THE work of Christian piety, which had been successfully carried on in Hungary, was now crowned with still greater prosperity. Stephen the Stephen king, who had been baptized by Adalbert bishop of king of Prague, and who began to reign in the year 997, born, showed himself a zealous patron of the Gospel. A. D. Under his auspices, Astricus came into Hungary, 997. opened a school, and educated ministers, while Boniface, one of his disciples, preached the word in Lower Hungary. The zeal of Stephen, indeed, was much stimulated by his pious queen, Gisla, daughter of the emperor Henry II. He often accompanied * Cent. Magd. Cent. XI. III. CHAP. the preachers, and pathetically exhorted his subjects. He suppressed barbarous customs, and restrained blasphemy, theft, adultery, and murder. His kindness to the poor, and, indeed, his whole moral conduct, was admirable. His excellent code of laws are to this day the basis of the laws of Hungary. It is inscribed to his son Emeric, whom he exhorts to cultivate sincere humility, the true glory of a king. He forbids in it all impiety, the violation of the Sabbath, and irreverent behaviour in the house of God. This monarch defeated the prince of Transilvania, who had invaded his dominions, and took him prisoner; but restored him to liberty, on condition that he should allow the Gospel to be preached to the Transilvanians, without molestation. Stephen was a prosperous monarch, but found Christian afflictions at home in the loss of all his children. His mind was, however, improved in divine Stephen things by his sufferings. He laboured three years was the first under a complication of diseases, and died in the Monarch of year 1038*. He had lived to see all Hungary Hungary. become externally Christian, though Christianity A. D. existed there, adulterated, or clouded at least by 1038. papal domination, and by the fashionable superstitions. He died, Brief account of his successor Peter. Gerard, a Venetian, had been much employed by king Stephen, as bishop of Choriad, a diocese of which two thirds of the inhabitants were idolaters. In less than a year, they, in general, had received the forms of Christianity from the pious labours of Gerard. The power of Stephen had seconded the views of the bishop; but the prospect changed on the king's decease. His nephew and successor Peter, persecuted Gerard: he was, however, expelled by his subjects in the year 1042, and Abas, a nobleman, was made king of Hungary, who being slain after two years, Peter was recalled, but was Alban Butler... |